Americans United - Ruth Bader Ginsburghttp://au.org/tags/ruth-bader-ginsburg
enForced Piety Mixed With Nationalism: You Don’t Have To Stand For It http://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/forced-piety-mixed-with-nationalism-you-don-t-have-to-stand-for-it
<a href="/about/people/rokia-hassanein">Rokia Hassanein</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Notorious R.B.G.) is nearly perfect in my feminist book of idols, but here and there, everybody will make problematic comments, including her.</p>
<p>In an <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/ruth-bader-ginsburg-on-trump-kaepernick-and-her-lifelong-love-of-the-law-132236633.html">interview with Katie Couric</a> on Yahoo!, released Monday, Ginsburg dubbed San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's choice to kneel and sometimes sit down during the National Anthem prior to games as “dumb and disrespectful.”</p>
<p> "I think it's really dumb of them [players who followed Kaepernick's example],” she said. “Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it's dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning.”</p>
<p>We all love Ginsburg, and I hate to criticize her here, but it’s not “dumb and disrespectful” to stand up – or in this case – kneel down for your values. As someone who considers Ginsburg a genius, I expected a more compelling or thoughtful analysis, especially since Kaepernick's decision is for social justice reasons.</p>
<p>Under the First Amendment, people can't be compelled to stand for nationalistic or religious ceremonies if they don't want to. That includes the National Anthem.</p>
<p>A similar thing happened to plaintiffs in AU’s ongoing <a href="https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/pa-house-of-representatives-can-t-discriminate-against-non-theists-americans"><em>Fields v. Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives</em></a> lawsuit, which is about inclusive invocations, when officials of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives <a href="http://www.au.org/church-state/october-2016-church-state/featured/non-theists-need-not-apply">tried to compel five state residents to stand during prayers.</a></p>
<p>This issue also flares up occasionally in public schools, where students are sometimes told they have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance even if they object to it on religious grounds or for some other reason. They have the right to remain seated. </p>
<p><img alt="" src="/files/79122843_0.jpg" style="width: 800px; height: 533px;" /></p>
<p><em>There's nothing wrong or dumb whether you do this or protest against it. </em></p>
<p>Now, Ginsburg is neither drawing a parallel to these cases nor is she arguing that Kaepernick and other players should be compelled to stand with her comments, but she is promoting nationalism as the more moral option. This simplifies the thoughtfulness behind Kaepernick's protest and the Black Lives Matter movement.</p>
<p>“I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it,” Ginsburg continued. “I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act... If they want to be stupid, there’s no law that should be preventive.”</p>
<p>While she’s on the right track of respecting the legal right to protest, Ginsburg, unfortunately, didn’t seem to grasp the power behind symbolic forms of protest. </p>
<p>“If they want to be arrogant, there’s no law that prevents them from that,” Ginsburg said. “What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view that they are expressing when they do that."</p>
<p>It’s disappointing. Ginsburg, who is Jewish and a woman, had to oppose institutionalized forms of bias to get a foothold in the legal world. In fact, elsewhere in the interview, she talked about the sting of anti-Semitism, remarking, “All I can say is I am sensitive to discrimination on any basis because I have experienced that upset.” I assumed she would sympathize more with Americans who are using social protest as a vehicle to amplify their voices.</p>
<p>It’s not “dumb” or “stupid” to raise awareness of this country’s injustices or to decline, on the grounds of conscience, to take part in exercises that compel piety and promote nationalism. It’s often brave and bold.</p>
<p>I love and admire Ginsburg – but I wish she had given a more thoughtful response to this ongoing debate. </p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-mottos-pledges-and-resolutions">Religious Mottos, Pledges and Resolutions</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ruth-bader-ginsburg">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/national-anthem">National Anthem</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/colin-kaepernick">Colin Kaepernick</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/black-lives-matter">Black Lives Matter</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/racism">Racism</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/antisemitism">Antisemitism</a></span></div></div>Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:07:37 +0000Rokia Hassanein12412 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/forced-piety-mixed-with-nationalism-you-don-t-have-to-stand-for-it#commentsBirth Control Battle: U.S. Supreme Court Weighs Limits Of ‘Religious Freedom’http://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/birth-control-battle-us-supreme-court-weighs-limits-of-religious-freedom
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>People of faith who live in the United States sometimes have to make compromises between their personal beliefs and following the law. As far as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is concerned, there is no obvious way to distinguish when violating one’s faith is acceptable and when it isn’t.</p><p>“Sometimes when a religious person…is a member of a society he does have to accept all sorts of things that are terrible to him,” said Kennedy during oral arguments this morning in the consolidated case of <em>Zubik v. Burwell</em>.</p><p>As examples, Kennedy said Quakers must pay taxes to support America’s wars or a Christian Scientist must report a car accident even if he or she knows doing so will result in the provision of medical care that he or she opposes.</p><p>At stake here is whether or not a compromise offered by the federal government to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) so-called birth-control mandate, which requires religiously affiliated non-profits to sign a form or write a letter stating their opposition to providing birth control in their employer health-insurance plans, is a burden to those groups that must sign the form or write a letter.</p><p><img alt="" src="/files/pictures/BarryZubik-Blog.jpg" style="width: 700px; height: 410px;" /></p><p><em>Above: Barry Lynn addresses the rally outside the Supreme Court during case arguments.</em></p><p>Under the compromise, any religiously affiliated non-profit that opposes birth control merely has to inform the government; the government then takes care of the rest by arranging for the coverage with a third-party insurance company at no cost to the objecting employer.</p><p>The three women on the high court seemed to doubt the idea that filling out a simple two-page form constitutes a substantial burden to anyone’s “religious freedom.”</p><p>“When will any government law that someone claims burdens their practice ever be insubstantial?” asked Justice Elena Kagan, noting that all religious groups take their own dogma very seriously.</p><p>Kagan also said that the United States likely could never “have a government that functions” if religious exemptions were provided to every group that said it had a sincere objection to various laws.</p><p>Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she feared this case could actually harm houses of worship if the groups challenging the accommodation win. She said Congress might stop granting exemptions to religious organizations if doing so becomes too complicated or gives too many groups permission to opt out.</p><p>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg struck at a core argument of groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Roman Catholic nuns who run a chain of nursing homes for the elderly and claim that opting out of the ACA requirement leads directly to the distribution of birth control – something they oppose.</p><p>“[Opting out] is not an authorization” to provide contraceptives, she said.</p><p>Meanwhile Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, said he has consulted the works of Saint Benedict (among other sorts of reading) in an attempt to “try and find a line” that can be clearly drawn between acceptable violations of one’s conscience and unacceptable ones.</p><p>Kennedy, who is often seen as the deciding vote in contentious cases like this, did not fully tip his hand during the argument. But it did appear that he was having trouble finding a clear test that would decide when religious groups should be required to obey laws they don’t like and when they should be able to opt out.</p><p>Two justices from the court’s conservative wing, however, seemingly have no such philosophical quandary. Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to believe the federal government is primarily concerned with finding an efficient way for women to obtain birth control, rather than doing so out of medical necessity. He pressed U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on why women can’t obtain coverage for birth control through a health care exchange rather than their employer if they work for a religious non-profit.</p><p>You want to provide birth control coverage “seamlessly” and “in one package,” Roberts said to Verrilli.</p><p>Verrilli responded that the idea behind the birth-control mandate is to make it so women do not have to obtain multiple health care plans or search out a doctor who can provide them with the care they need.</p><p>Roberts did not seem to think any of that mattered.</p><p>“It’s a question of who does the paperwork?” he asked, adding that the federal government is trying to “hijack” the health insurance plans already in place for groups like the Little Sisters.</p><p>Justice Samuel Alito teamed with Roberts in attacking Verrilli’s argument. He said the fact that the government offered any compromise at all undermines its assertion that providing women with access to certain forms of medical care is essential.</p><p>At this point, it’s still difficult to say what the outcome of this case will be. And with only eight justices on the court, a tie vote is possible. If that happens, the decisions of the lower courts will stand – seven have held that the requirement to fill out a form or write a letter is not a substantial burden and one went the other way – but no national precedent will be set.</p><p>Stay tuned. A decision is expected by the end of June.</p><p>P.S. Several groups were outside the court this morning rallying in favor of birth control access. Americans United was among them, and Barry W. Lynn was one of the speakers.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/religious-refusals-and-rfra">Religious Refusals and RFRA</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/reproductive-health-conscience-clauses-for-religious-objectors">Reproductive Health &amp; Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/zubik-v-burwell">Zubik v. Burwell</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/birth-control">birth control</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/us-supreme-court-0">U.S. Supreme Court</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/donald-verrilli">Donald Verrilli</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/sonia-sotomayor">sonia sotomayor</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/anothony-kennedy">Anothony Kennedy</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/little-sisters-of-the-poor">Little Sisters of the Poor</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ruth-bader-ginsburg">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/elena-kagan">Elena Kagan</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-roberts">John Roberts</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/samuel-alito">Samuel Alito</a></span></div></div>Wed, 23 Mar 2016 17:34:35 +0000Simon Brown11834 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/birth-control-battle-us-supreme-court-weighs-limits-of-religious-freedom#commentsPandora’s Pills?: Supreme Court Decision In Hobby Lobby Case Could Be Disastrous http://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/pandora-s-pills-supreme-court-decision-in-hobby-lobby-case-could-be
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Soon the very idea of “religious freedom” could be transformed from a noble concept to a tool of oppression. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Some <a href="http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/06/30/opinion-hobby-lobby-decision-narrow-victory-religion/11778381/">early reactions</a> to the Supreme Court’s decision in the <em>Hobby Lobby</em> case suggested that the ruling is too narrow to cause much real harm. But given that the high court just said corporations are people with religious freedom rights, and those rights are more important than women’s health, it seems the decision is a likely Pandora’s Box.</p><p><a href="https://au.org/media/press-releases/americans-united-dismayed-by-high-court-ruling-restricting-birth-control-access">In its 5-4 decision</a>, the Supreme Court said Hobby Lobby and other secular, closely held corporations (those with a limited number of shareholders) can ignore a federal law that requires them to offer health insurance plans to their employees that include no-cost birth control. The only thing corporate bosses have to do to opt out is claim their “sincerely held” religious beliefs put them in opposition to some medications. </p><p>When most people imagine “Corporate America,” they think of giant, publicly traded companies like Bank of America, Microsoft and General Motors. So the term “closely held corporations” probably doesn’t mean much to most people. But as <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/06/30/there_was_nothing_limited_about_scotus_hobby_lobby_ruling_why_it_matters_for_everyone/?utm_source=facebook&amp;utm_medium=socialflow">Salon reported</a>, these corporations actually make up more than 90 percent of all businesses in the U.S.</p><p>Plus, plenty of these closely held corporations are like Hobby Lobby, which has more than 500 locations and almost 20,000 employees. These are not just “mom-and-pop” stores with two employees (mom and pop). </p><p>Once you realize that, it becomes apparent how terrible this decision is.</p><p>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognized as much. <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/06/30/here_are_the_highlights_of_justice_ginsburgs_fiery_hobby_lobby_dissent/">In her dissent</a> from the <em>Hobby Lobby</em> majority, Ginsburg explained that the court “has ventured into a minefield.”</p><p>“In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,” she said.</p><p>Indeed, the decision leaves open the possibility that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a 1993 law intended to shield religious minorities from burdens upon their beliefs caused by federal laws, is so powerful that it could supersede all sorts of anti-discrimination laws. This means some corporations could potentially discriminate against anyone they choose based on religion, gender or sexual orientation.</p><p>The decision also makes it possible for employers to deny coverage to much more than just birth control in the future. Perhaps one day bosses who don’t believe in blood transfusions, psychiatrists or even pills with gelatin coating will be able to stop their employees from receiving such treatments.</p><p>Although we will not likely know for some time just how damaging the <em>Hobby Lobby</em> ruling is, a federal court offered what could be a sneak peak at a very dark future.</p><p>Just hours after the <em>Hobby Lobby</em> decision was handed down, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Eternal Word Television Network, a non-profit Catholic organization founded by a nun, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/opinion-by-alito-may-weigh-heavily-on-pending-challenges.html?_r=0">does not have to comply</a> with the birth control mandate for the time being. Numerous religious non-profits have challenged the mandate, but unlike secular for-profits, all the non-profits have to do is sign a form stating they oppose providing birth control to their employees. The federal government would then contract with a third-party to provide that coverage. </p><p>This matter is also likely to end up before the Supreme Court, and it’s hard to say what the outcome will be.</p><p>Ultimately it’s not clear how bad <em>Hobby Lobby</em> will be. Most likely additional court cases will be needed before the full scope of the ruling is understood. It could take decades for this to play out. It is clear, however, that a dangerous precedent has been set. Soon the very idea of “religious freedom” could be transformed from a noble concept to a tool of oppression.</p><p>If you get healthcare from your employer and you don’t know where your boss stands on various medical issues, you might want to find out. If you don’t like what he says, and you lose some healthcare benefits down the road, you have five misguided, male, Christian Supreme Court justices to thank.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/workplace-discrimination-exemptions-religious-practice">Discrimination, Exemptions &amp; Religious Practice in the Workplace</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/reproductive-health-conscience-clauses-for-religious-objectors">Reproductive Health &amp; Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/hobby-lobby">Hobby Lobby</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ruth-bader-ginsburg">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/closely-held-corporation">closely held corporation</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/eternal-word-television-network">Eternal Word Television Network</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/religious-freedom-restoration-act">Religious Freedom Restoration Act</a></span></div></div>Tue, 01 Jul 2014 20:20:01 +0000Simon Brown10231 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/pandora-s-pills-supreme-court-decision-in-hobby-lobby-case-could-be#commentsMass Mess: Bishops Use Church Service To Lobby Supreme Court http://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/mass-mess-bishops-use-church-service-to-lobby-supreme-court
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">It’s a shame that the justices allow the bishops to play their lobbying game by attending the mass.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court tied a record last week but that’s not something they should be proud of.</p><p>On Sept. 30, six members of the high court attended the annual “Red Mass,” a special church service for the legal profession held by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.</p><p>In attendance at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle were Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Elena Kagan. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas are Catholic; Breyer and Kagan are Jewish.</p><p>CNN reported that the high court’s showing last week <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/fea-scotus-red-mass/index.html">tied the attendance record for justices at the mass</a>, set in 2009.</p><p>The service, which is named because of the red vestments worn by the officiants, is held annually on the Sunday before the Supreme Court begins its new term, which is the first Monday in October. <a href="http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/red-mass-mandate-archbishop-advises-high-court-justices-about-religion-and">In previous years</a>, prelates have used the occasion to berate the justices on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and public funding of religious schools.</p><p>(It’s worth noting that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is Jewish, stopped attending the mass because of comments made one year that were strongly anti-abortion.)</p><p>This year, the mass was led by Timothy P. Broglio, archbishop for the military services. He stopped short of making direct references to controversial topics like abortion, but he did call on attendees to use their faith to guide their decisions. </p><p>Broglio said people should be “instruments” of a “new evangelization.” </p><p>“The faith we hold in our hearts must motivate the decisions, the words, and the commitment of our everyday existence,” Broglio said. “That existence is extraordinary, because it is infused with divine grace. St. Thomas More said that he died the good servant of the King, but the faithful servant of God first. We, too, are faithful citizens only when we embrace the fullness of the principles of our faith and allow them to enliven and fortify our contributions to the life of the nation.”</p><p>No judges, least of all those on the Supreme Court, should be making decisions based on their personal faith. They should be basing them on the Constitution and sound, legal reasoning.</p><p>Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn told CNN that the mass gives the Catholic hierarchy unparalleled access to the justices, and that’s simply inappropriate.</p><p>“There is one purpose to have this,” Lynn said. “It is to make clear…just what the church hierarchy feels about some of the very issues that are to come before the court. That is just wrong. And it is wrong for members to go – not illegal – but wrong for the archdiocese to promote and encourage this event.”</p><p>It may not be illegal for the justices to attend the Red Mass, but that doesn’t mean they should. The Catholic hierarchy is always trying to influence laws and public policy in the United States, and this is just another way for them to do that. It’s a shame that the justices allow the bishops to play their lobbying game by attending the mass.</p><p>We can only hope that next year none of the justices will attend the mass, which would be a record they can boast about.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/lobbying-by-churches-and-religious-groups">Lobbying by Churches and Religious Groups</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/other-issues-regarding-churches-and-politics">Other Issues regarding Churches and Politics</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ruth-bader-ginsburg">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/red-mass">Red Mass</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/antonin-scalia">Antonin Scalia</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/elana-kagan">Elana Kagan</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-g-roberts">John G. Roberts</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/stephen-breyer">Stephen Breyer</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/clarence-thomas">Clarence Thomas</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/timothy-p-broglio">Timothy P. Broglio</a></span></div></div>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:26:12 +0000Simon Brown7609 at http://au.orghttp://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/mass-mess-bishops-use-church-service-to-lobby-supreme-court#comments